=93The state Supreme=20
Court has served justice by driving a stake through one of the =
most=20
extreme and outrageous assaults on property rights in the United =
States,=94=20
said Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Brian T. Hodges, who =
brought the=20
legal challenge to the CAO rule. =93It=92s now time, once and for =
all, for=20
King County to stop enforcing this illegal seizure of people=92s =
property=20
and property rights,=94 said Hodges, who is managing attorney with =
PLF=92s=20
Pacific Northwest office in Bellevue, WA. =93Incredibly, the =
county=20
continued to enforce this unlawful regulation even after the court =
of=20
appeals struck it down last summer. Bureaucrats cited a Kent =
resident for=20
clearing blackberry and hazard trees on his property. The County =
even=20
imposed thousands of dollars of fines against another rural =
resident. Why?=20
Because he had the audacity to ask King County to hold off on =
enforcing=20
the unlawful land-freeze regulation until the Supreme Court ruled =
on the=20
county=92s petition for review.=94

The CAO rule forced =
rural property=20
owners in King County to set aside 50 percent to 65 percent of =
their=20
property in a permanent state of =93natural vegetation,=94 and =
prohibited=20
building structures or improvements such as a home, barn, or=20
driveway.

=93The death of this rule is a great day for King =
County=20
property owners,=94 Hodges continued. =93It is now undisputed that =
the county=20
had no authority to deprive residents of the use of their own =
private=20
property.=94 PLF is the nation=92s leading legal watchdog =
organization that=20
litigates for property rights in courts across the country. In the =
CAO=20
challenge, PLF attorneys represent the Citizens Alliance for =
Property=20
Rights. =93The defeat of this draconian regulation is a landmark =
victory for=20
everyone=92s property rights,=94 said Steve Hammond, president of =
the Citizens=20
Alliance for Property Rights. =93We=92re grateful to be able to =
partner with=20
Pacific Legal Foundation, especially attorney Brian Hodges, in =
this=20
successful fight against oppressive government.=94

The =
appellate=20
court held that the 65 percent set-aside rule violates a state law =
prohibiting a =93tax, fee or charge=94 on land use. Case law =
establishes that=20
this prohibition =93applies to ordinances that may require =
developers to set=20
aside land as a condition of development,=94 wrote Judge Ronald =
Cox in a=20
unanimous decision joined by Judge Susan Agid and Judge Anne =
Ellington.=20
None of the limited exceptions in the law apply, the court noted. =
For=20
instance, the state=92s Growth Management Act does not require =
CAO=92s=20
uncompensated restrictions on landowners=92 use of their=20
property.

The Citizens Alliance for Property Rights turned =
to PLF=20
after the King County Superior Court rejected the grassroots =
group=92s=20
attempt to place the CAO issue on the ballot. Individuals =
challenging the=20
ordinance include avid gardeners, horse owners, someone who =
planned to=20
build a home, and another who hoped to build a garage to accompany =
his=20
single-family residence. All of them had their plans to reasonably =
use=20
their private property derailed by the CAO.

Specifically, =
the CAO=20
limited rural landowners with five acres or more to clearing only =
35=20
percent of their property, forcing them to maintain the remaining =
65=20
percent as native vegetation indefinitely. Rural landowners owning =
less=20
than five acres were allowed to clear only 50 percent of their =
parcels.=20
Affected landowners had to continue paying taxes on the portion of =
the=20
property rendered useless by the CAO.